Constructual pylon & Small hardpoint

[SpacedCowboy]

Why are they in the " constructual" category rather in the "coupler" category?

Seems to me that they're just as much couplers/decouplers as the rest.

Thoughts?

[fourfa]

This was raised in the pre-release, and the devs wanted it where it is.  vOv

[magnemoe]

Yes, its a bit weird. 
They are prefect for boosters because they are so cheap compared to normal radial decoplers. 
Looks like they have low drag too, 
Only downside is that they are a bit heavier so not optimal for drop tanks on Mun landers or other deep space stuff

[Wjolcz]

One of them wasn't a decoupler before their look and functionality were redone.

[Overland]

Actually wish the smaller one didnt have its decoupling on by default..nothing worse than driving a trijet locomotive..hitting stage to blow the horn and losing half my train to projectile jet engines

 

Edited November 4, 2016 by Overland

[_stilgar_]

Devs said those parts' primary function is structural and the decoupler function is secondary. It makes sense. Because, if you put part in category just because it has some characteristic, lights would have to be in "electrical" because they use electricity... 

[problemecium]

^ On that note I actually would have put them there were I in charge xD

[Curveball Anders]

What are constructual pylon & small hardpoint?

Oh, aircraft parts.

Nevermind, move on.

[Overland]

My good friend @Curveball Anders

 

I respectfully disagree

Thunderbird 3 herself has 3 such hardpoints  and or pylons

"We need more pylons!"

Edited November 4, 2016 by Overland

[Curveball Anders]

1 minute ago, Overland said:

I respectfully disagree

I respectfully disagree with your disagree.

So we respectfully agrees to disagree, hopefully the kids will learn.

[I_Killed_Jeb]

Just now, Curveball Anders said:

What are constructual pylon & small hardpoint?

Oh, aircraft parts.

Nevermind, move on.

Sure, if that's the only kind of craft you decide to slap them on.

[SpacedCowboy]

Okay, I can see this thread is warping into something I never intended.

Moderators please,,,

[Overland]

Its a great example of a thread about pylons and hardpoints that detached from its primary purpose and took on a life of its own

 

Case in point.. They are decouplers

[Sharpy]

On 5.11.2016 at 0:15 AM, Curveball Anders said:

What are constructual pylon & small hardpoint?

Oh, aircraft parts.

Nevermind, move on.

You silly person.

They are lighter than decouplers. They are less draggy. They are more durable against impact. They are even cheaper. Shunning parts for rocket use because "they are aircraft parts" costs you dearly in efficiency.

[Firemetal]

Ok. Pylons seem as if they are made for planes. Less drag, cheaper and lower mass. Seems as if they would work great for decoupling drop tanks. However as @Overland said, they are great for sci-fi type spaceships. Not just Thunderbirds. A lot of sci-fi books and movies use them for spaceship parts such as landing legs and what Overland described: a structural stabilizer for thunderbird 3. So they can be used for a lot more than just airplane. 

Also they are not always used for decoupling things which is probably why the devs chose to put them in the structural category.

Fire

[LordFerret]

On 11/4/2016 at 7:41 PM, Overland said:

Thunderbird 3 herself has 3 such hardpoints  and or pylons

Sitting here wondering if the Kerbals inside have strings attached to them.

[magnemoe]

1 hour ago, Sharpy said:

You silly person.

They are lighter than decouplers. They are less draggy. They are more durable against impact. They are even cheaper. Shunning parts for rocket use because "they are aircraft parts" costs you dearly in efficiency.

They are heavier than the lightest radial decopler, TT-38 is 25 kg, but the small hardpoint is 50, the same as the TT-70 offset decopler.
The small hardpoint has an pretty weak decopler force compared to the TT-38, this can be an issue if you use it with longer boosters. 

I say that for boosters the main benefit is the cost, decoplers are expensive, the TT-38 is 600 funds, the trashcan is 400 and the thumper is 850, the small hardpoint is 50 funds. 
 

[Sharpy]

24 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

The small hardpoint has an pretty weak decopler force compared to the TT-38, this can be an issue if you use it with longer boosters.

Ok on mass side. Although I still think drag offsets this.

IMO where decoupling force begins to actually matter, no stock decoupler is strong enough. Small hardpoint or the separation mainfold, when decoupling a booster based on Twin Boar with two orange tanks, I need to use separatrons or winglets so I don't care about decoupler force. When decoupling a bunch of Hammers, small hardpoint is perfectly sufficient force-wise. And I don't think I'm using anything in between. Anything that would require larger Size 1 boosters, flies SSTO on Size 2 with a mainsail or twin boar.

[JonathanPerregaux]

I built a Federation starship using several structural pylons in order attach my warp drive nacelles (with the jettison disabled). So yeah. Construction part. Also, auto strut is fantastic.

[magnemoe]

4 hours ago, Sharpy said:

Ok on mass side. Although I still think drag offsets this.

IMO where decoupling force begins to actually matter, no stock decoupler is strong enough. Small hardpoint or the separation mainfold, when decoupling a booster based on Twin Boar with two orange tanks, I need to use separatrons or winglets so I don't care about decoupler force. When decoupling a bunch of Hammers, small hardpoint is perfectly sufficient force-wise. And I don't think I'm using anything in between. Anything that would require larger Size 1 boosters, flies SSTO on Size 2 with a mainsail or twin boar.

At that size I always use seperatrons, my issue is more about larger SRB, the trashcans works well with the small hardpoint

[Sharpy]

5 hours ago, magnemoe said:

At that size I always use seperatrons, my issue is more about larger SRB, the trashcans works well with the small hardpoint

Been a good while since I've used larger SRBs as side boosters.

Either they bring the payload into good suborbital as core, or they lose to LF core which doesn't need boosters. And if LF core needs boosters, larger SRBs are already too weak to contribute enough. Large clusters of small SRBs let me reduce my gravity losses immensely, by bringing me near 100% of atmospheric efficiency right off the launchpad, then the LF core with modest thrust lets me stay near 100% for most of the flight. The small ones buy me the early 200-400m/s to approach terminal speed right after launch. The large ones achieve maximum TWR when I need it least, losing it to atmospheric drag after spending fortune in fuel to get there while they barely contributed.